Piper and the clarity of scripture
Dan recently posted on John Piper's comment:
'My experience [with the New Perspective on Paul] is that people who talk this way do not generally see the meaning of the New Testament as clearly as those who focus their attention not in the extra-biblical literature but in the New Testament texts themselves. For the ordinary layman who wonders what to do when scholars seem to see what you cannot see, I suggest that you stay with what you can see for yourself'
In his usual style, Dan scorched his keyboard with blistering and amusing rhetoric. His whole post is well worth reading and I found myself agreeing that Dan has spotted something vital in going for the 'plain reading' jugular. Piper's comment, while understandable, is actually inexcusable. I am quite sure that there are many passages of the bible that say something quite different from the many potential 'plain readings', as scholarship demonstrates time and time again. This is a question of loving truth, of loving God with our minds, of an integrated spirituality, of an understanding of the actual nature of scripture and of the canon and its development, of the reformation of the church in light of scripture. The paper pope of the misunderstood clarity of scripture will keep many sure of their structurally problematic dogmatic castles, even when truth-seeking has shown them to be built on sand.
However, while I tend to many readings of Paul and the Gospels that are quite seriously subversive of pop-evangelical readings, especially in terms of justification and eschatology, I do wonder if the semper reforandum that has encouraged many of these readings has taken the bible from the average church-goer.
One of the commentators to Dan's post asked: 'How does a layman/laywoman read the bible if they do not possess the time or inclination to read what the scholarly body of work on a subject? And, when faced with two opposing "scholarly" viewpoints, what is the best way in which to judge those positions?'
Good questions, I think. Surely the clarity or perspicuity of scripture can be a much abused doctrine, but is not something lost when we push the 'true reading' into the realms of scholarship alone? Are we becoming another academic elite that fails to communicate with the life of the church, much like the protestant liberalism that Barth so vigorously shook off. Barth opened up to the person in the pew 'the strange new world of the bible'. Have we made it too difficult to reach?
These are rhetorical questions. I for one cannot and must not turn my back on scholarship and will seek to make its findings understandable to the church – rather than hiding behind nonsense dogmatic declarations clothed in a misunderstood doctrine of perspicuity. A part of me wants to say that dilettantes are better to steer clear of teaching, and read the bible only with the help of a theologically trained Christian teacher. Another part of me knows that is a stupid thing to say.
posted by Chris Tilling @ 12:03 AM
23 comments
23 Comments:
Now Lord knows that I can be as sarcastic as the next man, and a wee bit facetious at times, but I'm being very serious when I ask, is John Piper a scholar? I've never actually read one of his books and the few things I have read online or have heard him say never left me with an impression that he was any more scholarly than a Rick Warren or someone of that sort.
The paper pope of the misunderstood clarity of scripture will keep many sure of their structurally problematic dogmatic castles, even when truth-seeking has shown them to be built on sand.
Wow!!! Well said Lord Tilling, well said. If it was all so clear then why so much misunderstanding?
Anyway, I'm not deep enough to delve into your questions... I'll wait for some of your smart commentators to say something. :^D
i think Moises Silva has written the best discussion of the perspicuity of scripture in Has the Church Misread the Bible. It isn't the every detail is going to be completely clear to every reader, but that the central message will be recognizable.
With regards to the comment about lay people, I think that scholarship needs to have a two fold thrust:
1. to continually seek to understand scripture in its context as best it can
2. to see to it that the results of #1 make it into translation in an understandable way as much as possible.
Granted, I know that there is much debate about many issues, but we need to try as best we can.
I know people who have such a strict view of the words on the page that they will only read the KJV, or if you say "well that can be read alongside this extra-biblical text" their eyes bulge out, their faces go read and they start preparing the stake and some burning branches.
At Seminary we were always taught that there are 2 ways to read scripture. The first way is devotional. What is scripture saying to me personally? Often, some message you get from a text is unrelated to its actual context. Its just the Spirit prodding you.
The second way is what I call "serious". This is where you are prayerfully studying the text, bringing into play all the tools available. This is where you are asking what Scripture is saying about "the big picture" - if you get my meaning.
"What your can see for yourself" in Scripture is a good place to start. But we have scholars, sunday schools, sermons, etc in order to help the layman understand the big picture.
The problem is when scholarship makes itself inaccessible to the layman. This is why I love Tom Wright. He makes the big picture accessible to all. long live the Bishop!
I am absolutely convinced that one of the most dangerous things in this world is scripture (and not necessarily just Christian Scripture) in the hands of ignorant people.
The idea of a Bible in every house is a relatively new one in--a modern construction. I mean when Luther translated the Bible into German, I really don't think he wanted lay people reading it for themselves. He just wanted them to be able to understand what HE and his cronies were talking about. Even in the early days when Jerome composed the Vulgate, it's not like they sent it off to Zondervan and made millions of copies and left them int he desk drawers of all the inns in the Mediterranean. The copies that were made went to the ekklesia or to the academia.
I have serious doubts about the 'personal' reading of Scripture. The 'feeling' I get when I read a verse about comfort when I need to be comforted is really no different than the feeling I get when I read any other literary piece and get chills from the words I've read. Christianity, devotion and discipleship are not about feelings. They are about a longing for truth and a journey toward understanding. It is personal yes, but it should never be individual!
Scripture should be done in community.
The communities of the ekklesia and the academia need to speak the same language. The Academia should be serving the ekklesia and the ekklesia should be ministering that service to the laity. I think this is the trend within the academic community today. The only thing is that most Evangelical lay persons are extremely distrustful of the academy and are too focused on their individual 'personal relationship with Jesus.' 'The Bible can't be historical, it's the living, breathing Word of God. It has its own life. It's actually the 4th person of the Trinity!'
There are problems on both sides of the coin. And neither are easy fixes. But the journey toward truth should be our aim. And that will only happen if we come to Scripture in community.
Is Pipers "plain reading" really that plain? If current pauline scholarship is correct then Piper's reading would not have been plain to Paul or his readers. Pipers reading would also not have been plain to many just before the reformation.
Is there not something culturally conditioned about what would be considered a plain reading? Is Pipers plain reading "plain" because that is what everyone in his western evangelical tradition has been taught to regard as plain.
What would members of a remote African tribe consider the plain reading of the text?
The glory of the God is that He has chosen to reveale Himself in and through his creation. Both in the incarnation of His Son and in the in-culuration of his written word.
Just a thought though: let me change one word of that last sentence you quote from Piper, and tell me if it changes anything for you:
'For the ordinary scholar who wonders what to do when scholars seem to see what you cannot see, I suggest that you stay with what you can see for yourself'
As a first year theological student, I guess I'm still an ordinary layperson(!)...but I do know that I'd be going against my conscience to believe something I wasn't convinced of.
Maybe Piper just needed to add the caveat: 'until you read scholarship that is both true enough and clear enough to convince you'?
Mmmm...us Anglicans understand the clarity (or 'sufficiency', as Article 6 puts it) of Scripture to mean that it's clear in 'all things necessary to salvation' (Article 6). Cranmer, like the other Reformers, was equally clear on the need for a teaching office (Articles 19, 23, 24), and did not believe that every part of Scripture was equally clear (cf. 2 Pet 3:16!).
Why is everyone here assuming that the doctrine of perspicuity is proper? Is it at all scriptural? Is it not rather a byproduct of Luther's fight against popery?
Dustin writes: I am absolutely convinced that one of the most dangerous things in this world is scripture (and not necessarily just Christian Scripture) in the hands of ignorant people.
Hence the problem with "scholars".
You actually think your knowledge gives more clarity to the understanding of Scripture! and...
"The Academia should be serving the ekklesia and the ekklesia should be ministering that service to the laity."
How do you separate the academia from the ekklesia from the laity? Isn't the ekklesia all those who are "called out" and all are called to serve each other?
As one of the ekklesia who actually cares to learn from the scholars...this is absolutely why the comment Piper said is worth keeping on your refrigerator door...to remind you that the scholars usually will work/fight against each other since they usually have their own agenda and have a need to be "published to be a respected "Scholar"), so we (the ignorant ones) need to weed the crap and keep reminding ourselves that the Scriptures can speak for itself.
And though I used Dustin's comments to comment...after reading "Dan's post and all the comments...I'm just...whatever...
I can think of quite a few instances on which people like Dan actively encourage their readers (regardless of background) to open their bible and to pay attention to what the books are actually saying, and maybe especially to what Jesus himself is saying.
The problem we’ve got at the moment is that the dominant “spiritual culture” has drowned out the fervour of the original in some mediocre hermeneutics a la Bishop Spong or John Piper. Thus, the problem is not so much that laypeople read their Bible without access to learned scholarship. It’s that they are reading their Bible + some atrocious paperback commentaries on the side.
Dany
Thanks for that Silva book rec. Mike. I'll try to keep an eye open for it.
Iyre wrote: "This is why I love Tom Wright. He makes the big picture accessible to all. long live the Bishop!"
God bless you wise fellow you!
Christian, that is a great point, and I think thecaveat is most important.
Hi Steve!
The Anglican tradition surely has much to teach pop evangelicalism. I was taught to expect much more of teh doctrine of perspicuity. Confusion was drowned in an existential and moralistic now application of every text.
Phil, I realy need to read Seitz, oder?! Great comment - very thought provoking.
Dany and Anon (at the bottom). I really understand the sents you both express. I wouldn't suggest Piper'S words be hung anywhere, though. I think he misunderstands the clarity of scripture in this instance. But in another sense, perhaps those of us theologians ought to hang those words on our fridge?! I feel torn.
My actual response to this is far too detailed to actually post here. However, I will say that I believe the principle of clarity is a sound principle, just like the principle of study, is a sound principle at certain times. It is, however, very subjective and one must recognize that, like ed alluded to, that what is clear to one person is not clear to the other.
There are times people can create meaning where there should in fact be none, and a principle of clarity would work there. It can serve as a good check against some interpretations that some scholars come up with. Likewise, there are times where a text may seem clear to someone but in fact there should be greater study to obtain the actual meaning.
"As one of the ekklesia who actually cares to learn from the scholars...this is absolutely why the comment Piper said is worth keeping on your refrigerator door...to remind you that the scholars usually will work/fight against each other since they usually have their own agenda and have a need to be "published to be a respected "Scholar"), so we (the ignorant ones) need to weed the crap and keep reminding ourselves that the Scriptures can speak for itself." - anonymous
But the Scriptures don't speak from themselves apart from your own interpretations. While I understand what you are saying, and can agree in many ways, it is good to remember that not being a scholar but only being a reader of the Bible does not mean you get the true meaning of the Bible any more or less so that scholars do. Scriptures do not speak from themselves, but our own preconceived notions (whether right or wrong) interpret and speak. In that sense, laymen are no different from scholars.
I say this only to make sure we don't take way the privileged position scholars take and give it to laymen just because scholars are prone to error themselves. And maybe you don't, but I have seen many people actually imply that laymen are better at interpreting that scholars.
just to clarify Nick's question at the top of the comments, piper received a doctorate in theology from the university of munich, looking at Romans 9-11.
But then again, what do doctorates from Germany count for...:o)
Owen, I appreciate your response and insight...and would disagree with your conclusions "Scriptures do not speak from themselves, but our own preconceived notions (whether right or wrong) interpret and speak." I think that leaves out the Spirit giving insight and revelation.
I would like to know what "don't take way the privileged position scholars take and give it to laymen just because scholars are prone to error themselves" means...
"I think that leaves out the Spirit giving insight and revelation."
But how do we know that we are certainly inspired by the Spirit in our beliefs? If we are not, then it is certainly our own interpretations, unless we claim the Spirit lead us to a misinterpretation. But if we claim we our interpretations are direct inspiration of the Holy Spirit, then how do we know this and can we truly verify that or is it merely to justify our interpretations? And then can we be certain that inspiration doesn't work through guiding our minds and studies to obtain truth?
Secondly, revelation still, unless directly interpreted to us by the Holy Spirit, must be interpreted through our understandings.
I don't take out the Spirit and revelation, but I don't equate the Spirit guiding us with being a definite replacement for scholarly study (it would be if God wills it so). Otherwise, the Spirit works through guiding our studies, guiding the way we approach our study (whether it is generic or thorough).
"I would like to know what "don't take way the privileged position scholars take and give it to laymen just because scholars are prone to error themselves" means..."
I should have probably rephrased that, sorry. By that I mean that many people of the anti-academic sort essentially discount any scholarly opinions because they are academically learned. By implication then, the laymen is given the privileged position of the only people who can correctly interpret the Bible, as if they are inherently better than scholars at being led by the Spirit. The implicit argument is, if one is a scholar, one is not qualified to teach what the Bible says (often times argued because they have some other agenda other than God and truth).
I believe we have to guard against an anti-intellectualism, as if God can not or does not use scholarly study to give insight and truth to the individual. I think laymen need to go even further to say that without the scholarly knowledge, we will not amass as much correct knowledge (apart from any extraordinary work of the Spirit without working through studying).
Of course, I think we have to avoid to also the "only scholars and trained theologians know the truth" type mentality that runs amok in many scholars in theologians to varying degrees. In addition, there has to be recognition that being educated simply means that you are trained in a certain way of thinking. A mere education (formal or informal) doesn't make a person anymore likely to be correct unless the education itself is correct. Often times, an education can cloud a mind and place them down the wrong path. So scholars, theologians, etc. need to recognize that and recognize the very possibility that their own education could be like that and that they need to tread carefully in their pursuit of knowledge and be humble.
Anonymous was saying: Owen, I appreciate your response and insight...and would disagree with your conclusions "Scriptures do not speak from themselves, but our own preconceived notions (whether right or wrong) interpret and speak." I think that leaves out the Spirit giving insight and revelation.
I think, much more importantly, that it leaves out the fact that words have meaning (or for the postmodernists out there, words have agreed-on definitions as part of the social setting in which the language is used to communicate). Otherwise, all communication is impossible. There are large passages of Scripture which I would trust my teenage son to read and understand. How did Luther put it? That a farmer could understand the gospel if only there weren't a priest there trying to explain it to him. I think the clearness of Scripture extends over everything the Scripture intends to teach, and becomes problematic mostly when we try to peer behind it and infer from it to answer questions of our own, questions that were never directly addressed in Scripture. (This alone ought to give us pause about how relevant our questions are, but somehow it never seems to. We seem to take it as a defect in Scripture that its agenda is not ours ...)
Granted that we need to have some background in the social setting and the cultural references; some passages are more difficult than others. But the "trained specialist" approach runs the risk (ad absurdum) of leaving people wondering what "Love your neighbor" really means, while Christ tells a story to hammer it home ...
Another main problem (which often goes unmentioned) is that there are things that the words say when taken quite plainly, but they may not necessarily square with human logic or doctrinal preconceptions, which do quite a bit towards hampering our reading of what it actually says. It's funny how a preconception that Scripture could never say (x) affects the perception of the clarity of Scripture when we find (x) there.
Take care & God bless
WF
Hey Chris & Co.,
I took some time out to respond to some of these issues in more detail back on my ol' blog. I decided to stop writing after about 37 propositions.
Also, Chris, do you mind linking to every post I write so that I can have this sort of discussion? Thanks in advance.
Greetings WF!
"I think, much more importantly, that it leaves out the fact that words have meaning (or for the postmodernists out there, words have agreed-on definitions as part of the social setting in which the language is used to communicate)."
No disagreements there. However, herein lies the rub. Our English words have varying levels of different meanings from their Greek counterparts. For the laymen who does not speak Greek (or Hebrew), they may get the general gist of the text or they may miss some meaning the word in the original may have that it does not have in English (of course, to be fair, scholars miss these too).
"But the "trained specialist" approach runs the risk (ad absurdum) of leaving people wondering what "Love your neighbor" really means, while Christ tells a story to hammer it home ..."
Certainly true. But laymen also run the risk of doing the same, but only in less sophisticated ways. The only difference between the errors of laymen and scholars is that the scholar's error simply have enough window dressing to make it look appetizing. I can't tell you how many times I have engaged with discussions with average people about the Bible who try to strain out a gnat from a text while swallowing a camel. Scholars too though.
"Another main problem (which often goes unmentioned) is that there are things that the words say when taken quite plainly, but they may not necessarily square with human logic or doctrinal preconceptions, which do quite a bit towards hampering our reading of what it actually says. It's funny how a preconception that Scripture could never say (x) affects the perception of the clarity of Scripture when we find (x) there."
Once again, this is the error of the scholar and the layman. Look no further than Chris' "Biblical Evangelism" post where the woman defines the meaning of "yoke" in order to defend her view of dating... Now admittedly, it may have been a parody, but if so, it definitely parodies what in fact happens.
I think in part there is a fear of scholars because they have more of an audience so that their attempts to hijack certain texts are more visible that laymen. But in my experience, both sides are both guilty. Besides, this assumes abuse of scholarly pursuits negates scholarly pursuits (it is the implicit assumption made in this argument). But under that logic, the abuse of religion negates religions.
A few simple question to ponder. Why must the Bible be totally accessible in all regards to the laymen (I am not referring to merely basics)? Do we start off with the assumption that God makes all Scriptural truth accessible without in depth study? Additionally, if we discuss the role of the Holy Spirit, what leads us to conclude that he inspires laymen without in depth study?
I am not saying the Bible can only be understood by scholars. Such is a naive and an elitist of a view. I believe any average person can read the Bible and understand the essential truths to become a Christian and how to live the Christian life. However, on the flip side, the whole idea of laymen are just as fit, if not more so, than scholars who pursue studies is, I think, too anti-intellectual. I don't believe laymen, apart from a supernatural inspiration of the Holy Spirit, are fit to understand the deepest things of the Bible (of course I don't equate being a scholar as understanding deeper truths either). No more than an undergrad college student is normally fit to understand quantum mechanics without deep study. But the undergrad doesn't need to understand quantum mechanics, nor does the laymen (or anyone for that matter) need to understand every truth in the Bible to live the Christian life.
Thanks for your kind responses Owen...as a layman, from reading Scripture to studying our history from Ignitus, to Justin, to Origen...and so on, it shows me that as we get toward the 2nd and 3rd century church, the gospel starts changing and certain doctrines start evolving, and the fighting for academia power and control really raises it's ugly head...
So, I appreciate learning from the educated scholarly type, but I have to admit that it's hard to accept modern day scholars, just based on what happened to the scholarly in the very early days of the church.
But...appreciating their insight and work, knowing that they may have an understanding(revelation?) of part of the picture.
To note: This post was about "Piper" and I said to post his quote on the fridge...really because of what the linked Dan said...I never have read any Piper's stuff, but agreed more with him than what Dan had posted...
Hey anon
"So, I appreciate learning from the educated scholarly type, but I have to admit that it's hard to accept modern day scholars, just based on what happened to the scholarly in the very early days of the church."
Well, I can understand much of the apprehension. I have apprehension with many modern day scholars too, although I do not throw out the baby with the water. Many scholars have an anti-orthodoxy bend, and so I recognize that assumptions that they have going into their research. Likewise, I also recognize that are some pretty orthodox scholars, though not necessarily "conservative." And then there are conservative and orthodox scholars.
Scholars are prone to certain errors, just like laymen are prone to certain types of errors also. The conjunction of the two goes back to the ekklesia that Dustin talked about. Laymen learn from the scholars and in turn scholars (actually those who have humility) in turn learn different things from laymen/
Owen, As you can see...I'm certainly not throwing the baby out with the bath water! That's why I've been not only part of this discussion, but many others on this site, as well as other sites of this nature. We all can learn from each other and that is my desire.
As far as the modern scholars, it seems to me that scholars are focusing on one area of expertise, which can be good, and they seem to be able to pull out things that maybe are not there just to give new "insight" to something they think they see.... My belief is, you have to look at the Scriptures (OT & NT) to get the clearest picture. This whole thing about mono or polytheism seems like a perfect example of creating new revelation from the minds of scholars...that no, they really believed in more than one creator God...or gods...
Thanks Owen. I do appreciate your feedback and take it to heart.
For anyone interested, Piper's book The Future of Justification: A Response to N.T. Wright is available online for free here.
Hey anon. I appreciate our discussions too.
I do agree that the focus on one area of expertise is a problem. I think the biggest problem with that is not merely that they pull stuff out. I think it goes further. They have studied in one area and so they are knowledgeable about that field, but they lack some knowledge in other areas. As a result, they can sometimes formulate new ideas, but primarily based on a study ion their specialized field. As a result, they fail to get whole picture (but they don't realize this) so they do not get a good idea of what the evidence truly supports. I myself, being an aspiring scholar want to focus on a few areas, even if it takes a great amount of time, in order to avoid that problem.
Furthermore, I do believe that we have to look at the OT and NT for the understanding of our faith. Most everything else (at least before the church fathers) merely informs us about the OT and NT and the context in which it was written. Those things become of great importance, but they are only, say, 15% of the equation (just an arbitrary number to make a point).
So with the whole polytheism, like seeing polytheism in 1 Corinthians 8:15, I find to be stretching it sometimes. It is one thing to bring up the possibility to study further, just for the sake of being precise, but it is another thing to draw big leaps based upon small amounts of evidence, especially when it causes a great amount of difficulty with the rest of the pool of evidence (the other texts of the Bible).
Post a Comment
<< Home